The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 79
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,214

    Default Proposed rule change for "completed"

    http://www.usef.org/documents/ruleChanges/441-07.pdf
    is a rule change proposal to change the definition of "completion" in Appendix 3- in particular in terms of what counts as a qualifying competion, either for "moving up", or for "Horse" or "Rider" division.

    It SAYS
    Completion, except as noted below, means having completed the entire Horse Trial, and itmeans having:
    - not more than 50 penalty points in the Dressage Test; and
    - not more than 20 penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test, and not more than 90 seconds (36 penalty points)
    - exceeded the optimum time in the Cross Country Test; and
    - not more than 16 penalties at obstacles in the Jumping Test.
    But since a requirement to exceed the optimum time doesn't make much sense, I think it is SUPPOSED to say

    Completion, except as noted below, means having completed the entire Horse Trial, and it means having:
    - not more than 50 penalty points in the Dressage Test; and
    - not more than 20 penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test, and not more than 90 seconds (36 penalty points) exceeded the optimum time in the Cross Country Test; and
    - not more than 16 penalties at obstacles in the Jumping Test.
    Janet

    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb. 4, 2004
    Posts
    2,641

    Default

    I know I'm going to be outvoted on this one, but I don't like the dressage qualification for moving up. I don't really see the point (guessing the argument is safety?), assuming that our dangerous riding rules would catch that more directly.

    As for the horse/rider divisions, I don't care either way, since it doesn't impact the level at which you can compete, just the divisions within.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr. 11, 2007
    Location
    body in charlottesville VA, heart in Ocala FL
    Posts
    2,037

    Default

    I don't like it. Personally I think completing should be just that - completing the event, not getting a certain score.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2003
    Location
    Bristol, TN
    Posts
    1,720

    Default

    As someone who moved up in the standings with 23 sj points--and wasn't riding dangerously, either-I agree I don't like it.



  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan. 10, 2007
    Location
    too far from the barn
    Posts
    5,647

    Default

    as an amateur who rode the worlds' safest horse who hated dressage, I don't think dressage scores for completion are appropriate. It was perfectly safe and appropriate for us to move up when we did, but our dressage scores weren't always making it
    OTTBs rule, but spots are good too!



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr. 30, 2002
    Location
    Looking up
    Posts
    6,217

    Question

    In addition, that is a poorly structured paragraph.
    If the present tense is used -- "it means having" -- then the time penalties must be referred to as "exceeding" not having been "exceeded".

    The whole thing sucks. Completed means completed the test. I don't like the federation's new definition of "completed". I would much rather they used a different word to describe this. Perhaps QUALIFYING STANDARD. Drop the "completed" for this meaning. When you talk about eventing to others if you did the dressage, the xc, and the stadium they and the rest of the English speaking world understand what "completed" means.

    I do not think 50 in dressage is remotely fair. The breed organizations like American Warmblood Society referr to 55 as being a qualifying score for some registration criteria, and I think 55 is a safer number to use with regard to dressage. Our sport is NOT dressage and dressage is only supposed to count for the smallest bit of it. Making the score low makes dressage way more important for QUALIFYING than it should be for competing.
    I think 16 is too difficult for stadium as well. You can't quantify stadium courses. Some are difficult, some are easy, some are set on side hills on flat cups, some use 50 lb. rails in coffee cup holders that couldn't come down if Godzilla rapped them with both sets of legs.
    As far as time penalties go, again, let's encourage people to ride like hell on cross country, there's a safety point gone out the window. Sheesh. Who makes this stuff up?
    "Passion, though a bad regulator, is a powerful spring." -- Emerson
    www.eventhorse.wordpress.com



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2001
    Location
    Almost Aiken
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    But notice that the penalties are "at obstacles", so as written it doesn't mean time penalties, just looking for clear rounds. They also don't start until Prelim.

    All in all I don't think this is such a bad thing, though I admit I'm on the fence a bit about the addition of dressage requirements. But I'm leaning towards being OK with the whole thing, really.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec. 18, 2003
    Posts
    1,882

    Default

    So those are the requirements for a competition to qualify for an FEI three-day, right?

    And now the same are going to apply to moving up the levels in US horse trials?

    Wow.

    I think the dressage component really sucks. Because that means part of moving up is now going to be based on the subjective opinions of judges. Judges, as we all well know, can WIDELY differe in what they thing is good and bad, and how they reward points. This is just STUPID. Base it on objective criteria - stops, rails, and time if you must, but leave the effing dressage out of it. The DQ judges have more than enough influence in our sport now. What is WRONG with the USEF????



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct. 22, 2001
    Posts
    5,166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retreadeventer View Post
    I do not think 50 in dressage is remotely fair. The breed organizations like American Warmblood Society referr to 55 as being a qualifying score for some registration criteria, and I think 55 is a safer number to use with regard to dressage.
    Remember that in straight dressage criteria, a 55 is considered 55% good marks, versus in eventing, where the number goes to penalty points accrued (as a conversion of the percentage). A 50 in penalties is equivalent (using the dressage conversion table), to a 50% good marks - or straight 5s on every single movement. Thus, your standard of a 55 in dressage terms is actually harder to achieve than the standard set forth here.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar. 29, 2005
    Posts
    891

    Default

    Is this for all qualifications? so does this start with the 4 trainings to move up to prelim? If that is the case- I really don't think its so bad. I mean, if you cant get around with only one stop and that is a LOT of time penalities you can rack up too- you probably SHOULDNT be moving up. really. completing really isn't the same as competant at that level. esp in regards to moving up a level. I do have mixed feelings on the dressage. If you ahve a horse that hates the dressage, that can be a really sucky way to not be able to move up if you have clear rides elsewhere. but it is incentive to work on the dressage a bit. I would say maybe 55 does sound better. you can have a hot tense horse that will easily score around a 50 on a cold windy day and I dont think that makes you unsafe.

    But I actually agree with the other requirements. at least for moving up to prelim and beyond. Its really not that much to ask to get around with just one stop and not more than 36 time penalities. and 4 rails in SJ. though again- it would be disappointing to have an unlucky day in the SJ ring and not qualify, but I see where they are coming from. I think the xc requirements are on the right track.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec. 25, 2005
    Posts
    1,921

    Default

    I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

    Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2002
    Location
    Azle, Teh-has
    Posts
    7,769

    Default

    I never looked twice at the dressage requirement.
    All 5s is not at all out of the question.
    I think all the suggested rules are fair.
    http://kaboomeventing.com/
    http://kaboomeventing.blogspot.com/
    Horses are amazing athletes and make no mistake -- they are the stars of the show!



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar. 31, 2002
    Location
    Madison, GA
    Posts
    1,024

    Default Dressage at FEI is scored differently

    At Rolex, or any FEI event, 50% good marks would mean a score of 75 or better. So Master Monarch absolutely would have had a "qualifying score".



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan. 29, 2000
    Location
    Pretty much horse heaven
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eventer13 View Post
    I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

    Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.
    The rule change refers to a dressage score of 50 in a Horse Trial. The dressage is calculated differently in Horse Trial than it is in an FEI three-day such as Rolex. A 50 at Rolex is more like (aprox) a 35 penalty score at a Horse Trial.
    Hindsight bad, foresight good.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar. 22, 2007
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eventer13 View Post
    I was looking at the scores from Rolex, and Master Monarch got a 53.1 in dressage. So, under these rules, he won the competition but still didn't "complete" it. I know this will have no effect on Rolex, just for qualifying, but still makes me wonder if the dressage component is a bit harsh. Especially seeing that there were several horses in the top 10 who had a dressage score greater than 50. Like someone else said: on a windy day with hot, fit Thoroughbred, you may not do so well in dressage, but still be able to get around XC and stadium fine.

    Edited to add: this is the 2006 Rolex, of course.
    However, in FEI competitions, the penalty score is mulitplied by 1.5 to get the final score. Which means that Andrew Hoy actually got a 35.4.

    I do agree with your point though; the dressage requirement for competion is unfair.



  16. #16
    Join Date
    May. 22, 2002
    Location
    somewhere between middleaged and dead
    Posts
    1,892

    Default

    Is this for safety or to only move up horses that "do" better? If for safety, I agree with others to dump the dressage test quals and I'd up the amount of rails that can fall in stadium. If it's to move up the horses that "do" better, then whatever, but it leans towards those in areas with more competitions like Area II or III. A person could be having a bad stadium day and miss a qualifier, if they have another event scheduled next week, then it's just money But if there aren't that many events, then they might have to wait another year.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul. 2, 2003
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    2,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scubed View Post
    ...horse who hated dressage, I don't think dressage scores for completion are appropriate.
    I am not a huge fan of people claiming their horse "hates" dressage - 99% of the time it's the RIDER that can't produce a decent test, not the horse. If a horse truly detested dressage, I imagine it's because there's a pain issue or inappropriate training. Producing a "50" caliber test is more than enough for qualifying criteria.
    -my life-
    Translation
    fri [fri:] fritt fria (adj): Free
    skritt [skrit:] skritten (noun): Walk



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Oct. 22, 2006
    Location
    Area II
    Posts
    366

    Default

    I dont get why people are getting in such a huff and a puff about this.
    you dont need qualifying scores to do bn/n/t so the new "completion" rule will not effect these, correct.
    theres always been qualifying scores to get to prelim, 4 trainings with only one allowed to have a refusal XC. i dont think it would be unreasonable to ask that you now be able to get under a 50 dressage, be less then 90 seconds under time XC, and knock 16 or less rails. if you cant do that at 4 trainings, why the heck would you move up to prelim??



  19. #19
    Janet is online now Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,214

    Default

    "Completed" comes up in several contexts.

    First is in the definiton of the "Rider" divisions:
    RIDER (R) - Levels restricted by rider are limited to those competitors who have not completed more than two Horse Trials at the next highest level or higher in the previous 24 months.
    So, with the new definition of "completed" if you had done 10 HT at Training, but each of them, for some reason, wasn't "completed", you would still be eligible for "Novice Rider".

    In some cases, it would be possible to WIN your division with a score that would not count as completion .

    In terms of qualifying to go Prelim, there are additional criteria (in the same rule change proposal).
    The competitor must have completed four Horse Trials at the Training Level or higher, two of which must have been completed with no penalties at obstacles on the Cross Country Test
    Janet

    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul. 22, 2005
    Location
    Nor-Cal
    Posts
    910

    Wink

    For the lowest levels of BN and N yes I have seen a lot of safe jumping rounds on horses teaching the joy of eventing to kids and adults but often some of these saints are not high on the ladder of dressage scores, So I can see how 50 would be tough when you have safe rounds out there.

    However I should hope anyone wanting to make the leap from Training to prelim would be able to stay under the 50 mark in dressage before moving up.

    I think the XC ruling is fair and hate to say it but more than 16 jumping (not time) in stadium should be saying something at prelim and above.



Similar Threads

  1. What do you think of this proposed rule change?
    By Rel6 in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Oct. 28, 2011, 10:29 AM
  2. USEF Proposed Rule Change for Eventing - Helmets
    By Innocent Bystander in forum Eventing
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: Feb. 3, 2011, 11:00 AM
  3. Proposed rule change....USEF
    By JRG in forum Dressage
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Feb. 23, 2010, 08:34 PM
  4. Proposed USHJA rule change STINKS
    By elizuhowell in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 261
    Last Post: Dec. 7, 2009, 10:45 AM
  5. Replies: 102
    Last Post: Mar. 21, 2006, 10:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •